Posted on 08/21/2023 11:36:30 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Sounds like ulcer or defect in digestive tract.
He was losing weight for 4 months. The vax Jan was more recent. Common sense tells you this kid was already sick and should have skipped the jab. You don’t need to buy home insurance if the house is destroyed already. Vax is not a cure or prevention. It is only insurance to avoid serious attack of covid. Why would a kid with severe digestive issues be subjected to stress of the jabs?
“Addison’s Disease”. One of the symptons of this hormonal disease is weight loss.
BTW, I predict this ‘death’ will be posted multiple times in the future and attributed to the vaccines.
Predict all you want........
You seem preoccupied with defending the “vaccines”. With all due respect.
Addison’s is treatable. Whether or not the Pfizer concoction aggravated McGinty’s condition will never be uncovered now.
Olog-hai wrote: “You seem preoccupied with defending the “vaccines”. With all due respect.”
Perhaps you should address those who are preoccupied with attacking the vaccines. BTW, I don’t defend the vaccines, I post accurate information that debunks the anti-vaxxer conspiracy cult narrative that is so popular here on FR.
Why do you call that a preoccupation?
And why do you call them “vaccines”, particularly when they are/were not made in the way vaccines are made?
Again with all due respect, it seems that you are the one with the preoccupation, that being with those who question whether the substances dubbed “vaccines” and promulgated for the alleged protection against the virus dubbed “COVID-19” by the communistic United Nations’ World Health Organization are indeed what they are claimed to be.
Olog-hai wrote: “And why do you call them “vaccines”, particularly when they are/were not made in the way vaccines are made?”
Because I’m not a member of the anti-vaxxer conspiracy cult and don’t believe their narrative.
Olog-hai wrote: “Ad hominem is not an answer. Do you have an answer?”
You got your answer, the only ones who believe they are not vaccines are members of the anti-vaxxer conspiracy cult and who believe their narrative.
Olog-hai wrote: “In other words, you refused to answer me. What I “got” instead of my “answer” was two logical fallacies. Perhaps I request a logical answer in vain?”
Perhaps you should recognize that not believing in the anti-vaxxer conspiracy cult narrative is a valid answer. It isn’t a personal attack, a false dilemma, or any other type of logical fallacy.
Olog-hai wrote: “No; it is argumentum ad hominem. Saying something is a vaccine merely because a group of people say it is something else does not make it a vaccine.”
Please refer to the definition of ad hominem.
Olog-hai wrote: “Not to mention you having hijacked the thread to express bile at the object of your spite, whuch is the red herring fallacy. Conservatives champion logic while liberals eschew it.”
The anti-vaxxers are the ones who’ve hijacked this thread. the subject is “No evidence boy’s death was linked ot COVID or vaccine, inquest hears”, yet you want to debate the definition of vaccine.
“anti-vaxxer conspiracy cult”
Vaxxes are medical Russian roulette created by greedy and ruthless Big Pharma companies.
If that is a “conspiracy theory” so be it.
cgbg wrote: “Vaxxes are medical Russian roulette created by greedy and ruthless Big Pharma companies. If that is a “conspiracy theory” so be it.”
It is a conspiracy theory because vaccines save millions of lives every year.
“vaccines save millions of lives every year”
Wacko claim—supported by “evidence” produced by Big Pharma whores.
cgbg wrote: “Wacko claim—supported by “evidence” produced by Big Pharma whores.”
Supported by far better evidence than the evidence that supports the anti-vaxxer narratives.
“Ad hominem” literally means “to the man”. My question was (to reiterate yet again) how you know the substances claimed to be vaccines produced by Pfizer (particularly in this instance) and others can be considered vaccines particularly when their production was so radically unlike how vaccines are produced (for starters); and your reply (repeatedly) seems to be that they must be vaccines because a subset of people firmly insist that these substances are not vaccines but instead harmful substances, and attacking their sanity, which is not an answer but actually two logical fallacies in one, namely the attack on person and the distraction tactic while saying absolutely nothing about the substances claimed to be vaccines at all.
Your apparent animus against so-called “anti-vaxxers” has left you unable to answer my question and instead retreat into liberal-like emotionalism. I’m sorry to see that you do not want to answer my question dispassionately without descending into tirades about “anti-vaxxers” whom I did not mention. Have a nice day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.